Economics Questions

[KWorld]

The US trans-continental railroads were private as well.

The first railroads out west were built using funds generated by the sale of federal lands turned over to the railroads.  Most often the owners of the company that the feds gave land to to build the railroad would subcontract the actual construction of the company off to a "construction" company owned by them, generating excessive profits.  Many times the railroads would be completed, but shoddily.  Then the original owners will sell the company off at a profit leaving the new owner with a rapidly degrading railroad.

Sure, but from the government's perspective, the land was long-ago paid for (for a song, basically).  It was a resource, but one that the government was going to give away anyway (via homesteading, or other processes that allowed people to claim untenanted lands).

The government gave away potential assets.  Without the land grants the railroads would not have been built.  Oh sure some would have.  But not as many as were eventually built.  Hell, companies were created solely to receive a land grant, the company built the minimum miles of track required then cashed in. 
The railroads required government subsidies.  So the government needs to pay for extra railroads and other major infrastructure costs.  Economic benefits only come after the initial capital investment made at govt expense.  Whether or not the govt paid money for the land they eventually used to finance the RRs is irrelevant.  The govt gave away some of its assets to finance the RR.

Non-performing assets were given away, let it be noted.  Giving away land you're not using and no one else is using (that you consider as counting) isn't much of a cost.   It is, in fact, a net gain to the government as a whole because federal lands are not taxed, while lands in private hands are subject to state and local property taxes.

But anyway, I'm fine with the Canal being paid for from "military" funds, just checking to see what the thoughts were.

[Delta Force]

I noticed that the port construction rules make it far cheaper to construct multiple small ports than several large ones if you want to build smaller ships. The rules also don't prohibit ports from being constructed in the same place. Can I build several size 0 and size 1 ports in the same place to serve as factories for my torpedo boats and destroyers? It turns out that gives a much better economy of scale than building one large factory or building several ships in one slip, so there isn't really any reason to build more than a few size 2 and larger ports unless it is home to a large fleet.